by Jonathan V. Wright, M.D.

(with thanks to Jennifer Berkowitz and the Fund for Personal Liberty)

You’ve been forced to pay Social “Security” taxes since you started working whether you wanted to or not. In return, you’ve been promised that when you retire, Social “Security” will pay you a small amount every month (an amount too small to be called “security”, but that’s a discussion for another time). But did you know that when you apply for Social “Security,” you’ll be refused -- yes, refused the right to your own money! -- unless you also sign up for Medicare (or, as I call it, “Mediocare”) Part A? (Part A is a hospital care program for those over 65).

When Congress created Social “Security” in the 1930s, Mediocare didn’t exist. And when the Mediocare program was created in the 1960s, there was no legal provision written to link the two programs. Yet little-known administrative policies adopted by los Federales in 1993 and strengthened in 2002 say that seniors can't refuse Mediocare, Part A coverage unless they forgo Social “Security” too -- even if they’ve paid Social “Security” taxes their entire working careers! Adding insult to injury, once you’re enrolled in “Mediocare,” the only way you can withdraw -- according to the bureaucracy’s edict -- is to repay all Social “Security” money you received, as well as any hospitalization benefits “Mediocare” may have paid on your behalf.

You might wonder why it matters. Why would you want to pay for your own hospitalization when you can get it for “free” through Mediocare, Part A -- especially when you’ve been forced to pay Mediocare taxes for all or most of your working career?

Perhaps the most important reason is the quality of care -- or more precisely, the lack of it -- “covered” by Mediocare.

Despite having paid thousands upon thousands in Mediocare taxes over the years, you’re only “allowed” to have the diagnostic and treatment procedures “approved” by los Federales. Anything else, even if it could save your life, isn’t “allowed.” If you’re “covered” by Mediocare, you’re not even supposed to go “outside the (Mediocare) system” for an “unapproved” diagnostic procedure or treatment -- even if you pay for it yourself! (Apparently, that’s how los Federales define “American freedom.”)

Another reason to consider not enrolling in Mediocare is the total lack of doctor-patient confidentiality. According to the Institute for Health Freedom, at least 600,000 individuals, institutions, and “entities” may be authorized by Mediocare bureaucrats to read any of your medical records kept in electronic form at any time -- without your knowledge or consent! And the recently enacted so-called “economic stimulus program” contains provisions that will make this lack of medical privacy situation even worse.

Keeping your freedom -- and your benefits!

Now, the good news: Five people have filed a lawsuit challenging these unconstitutional, illegal, and coercive policies.  They’re backed by the Fund for Personal Liberty, a 501(c)3 (tax-exempt) eligible organization, and represented by the law firm of Kent Masterson Brown, a well known health care and constitutional law specialist (and published Civil War historian). Known as Brian Hall et al v. Charles E. Johnson et al, the lawsuit seeks to permanently prohibit the Social Security Administration and Department of Health and Human Services from continuing the policies that force American citizens to participate in Mediocare, Part A (a supposedly “voluntary” program) in order to have some of their Social “Security” taxes returned as “benefits.”

The five plaintiffs allege that mandatory enrollment in Mediocare violates the Constitution, as well as the Social Security and Medicare Acts. They also state that the rules were put into place without proper “notice” and “comment,” as required by federal law.

The lawsuit is slowly making its way through the court system. Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer (U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) disappointingly denied the lead plaintiff’s request for a temporary restraining order barring the Department of Health and Human Services from forcing him into Mediocare. (The judge did, however, make it clear that this ruling has no bearing on the merits of the case.) Instead, she seemed to provide early indications that she might very well support the plaintiffs’ position, writing: “It is passing strange that SSA insists that all persons receiving Social Security retirement benefits, a federal program that is running out of money, also must be part of Medicare Part A, another federal program that overruns budgets.”

Not surprisingly, the government has filed a motion to dismiss the case. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, have asked the court -- on the basis of the overwhelming weight of the evidence on their side -- for summary judgment, which is a ruling in their favor without a trial.

The two sides will meet again in Judge Collyer’s courtroom on May 22nd. The plaintiffs and their legal counsel are confident they will eventually win their case, but they still have a long way to go.  While they are capable of paying their own medical bills, they unfortunately are not also capable of paying the mounting legal fees necessary to restore the freedom that all Americans over 65 had by right from 1783 through 1992 -- the freedom to pay their own hospital bills if they prefer to do so!

That’s where I’m hoping you will help!

Please consider supporting their courageous efforts to restore a part of health care freedom for all “free citizens” by sending a donation to the Fund for Personal Liberty, c/o Webster, Chamberlain & Bean, 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20006. Thank you!         

If you would like to learn more information about this important legal effort, visit www.medicarelawsuit.org.